Communication with the Public after Fukushima

Communication with the Public after Fukushima

Communication with the Public after Fukushima –
Social Media and Conventional Media
Christian Stieghorst and Gabriele Hampel
Introduction
Important impact of the social and
conventional media on:
• the public beliefs, opinions and attitudes
• political decisions
• acceptance of NPP and even research
reactors affected by public debate in
modern media
Agenda
I.
General aspects of social media and conventional media
in risk communication
• New media compared to conventional media
• Opportunities and risks of social media
II.
Social media and conventional media after Fukushima
• Coverage of different nuclear accidents compared to Fukushima
III.
Symposium “Radiation protection – one year after Fukushima”
of the FS
IV.
Public relations for the Research Reactor TRIGA Mainz after
Fukushima
General aspects
The dissemination and receipt of information:
Conventional media: TV and radio news, newspapers, magazines
Social media: blogs, video blogging (YouTube), microblogging services (Twitter), social
networks (Facebook), etc.
Aspect
Conventional media
Social media
Reach
(mostly) regional, national
global
Accessibility /
Usability
production requires equipment, skills
reduced to a minimum
Recency
time lag between occurrence and
publishing
nearly instantaneous
Permanence
articles cannot be altered
editing possible
Quality
comparatively narrow range
comparatively wide range
Tendency: web presence of conventional media with integration of multimedia content
and social media components (e.g. “like” buttons, commentary functions, …)
General aspects
Some opportunities and risks of social media (respective to broadcasting news):
•
Objectiveness vs. emotional, irrational and abusive content
(“shitstorm”: “Anglicism of the Year” in Germany (2011), “Word of Year” in
Switzerland (2012))
•
More up-to-date coverage vs. journalistic carefulness
Twitter: water landing in the Hudson River, 2009
SMS / social media: false report caused mass panic in India, 2012
•
Moderated linear broadcasting vs. extensive, interactive content
Wide range of information, but:
“Who leads the user to high quality content?”
•
New possibilities for conventional media!
More space for discriminating / detailed articles
Multimedia content, discussions, correction of mistakes
Breaking news on newspaper websites
Social Media after Fukushima
Fukushima coverage in comparison with former nuclear accidents (S.M. Friedman 2011):
1979 Three Mile Island coverage:
•
Era before internet / cell phones
•
Reporters with often marginal knowledge about radioactivity
•
Language gap between scientists, engineers and journalists
•
Hardly any explanation of radiological context
•
Task Force1: incomplete, “abysmally inadequate”
1986 Chernobyl coverage:
1
•
Controlled press (first extensive Soviet public report on May 6, 1986)
•
Rare informations within the first two weeks, speculations
•
Limited effort to explain radioactivity (few glossaries, graphics)
•
Germany: gap between coverage and information needs (BfS)
•
USA: “just as much a mess as ever” (D. Rubin, former head of the Task Force1),
“fair reporting of Chernobyl with a few excesses” ( Atomic Industrial Forum)
President's Commission: Report Of The Public's Right To Information Task Force
Social Media after Fukushima
2011 Fukushima coverage:
•
Short after the accident: high activity in blogs, Twitter, Facebook etc.
Japan: fastest growing of Facebook worldwide, many tweets on Twitter
More blogs were written in Japanese than any other language
Google returned ~75 million results for „Fukushima“ (4 month after the accident)
•
Radiation coverage more extensive and even better because of the emphasis of
background informations / explanations (S. M. Friedman)
•
High amount of information: “the problem wasn‘t getting expert sources; it was vetting
expert sources” (P. Sandman, former member of the Task Force)
•
Today everyone could create “news”, specialty reporters are needed for vetting sources,
but: In many cases, the number of those specialists which work for a newspaper is
decreasing!
•
Active citizen participation / news selection worldwide
Similarities:
•
Inaccurate information short after an accident, language gap, specialized reporters rare
Symposium of the FS
“The ruthless 15-Seconds-ultimatum in press, radio and television”
(Jörg-Michael Junginger, media advice media training (tv radio print), PRadvice, crisis communication, Germany)
„Who is telling you, that journalists are not right?“
(Thomas Petersen, Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach, Germany)
Symposium of the FS
Symposium of the FS „radiation protection one year after Fukushima
Session 1: Comments of the experts
Contributions of Wolfgang Weiss, UNSCEAR,
Renate Czarwinski, IAEA / IRPA, Martin Sogalla, GRS and others
Session 2: Reactions of the public
Contributions of media trainers and pollster
Session 3: What did we learn?
Session 4: Long term consequences of the Fukushima accident?
Evening lectures for the public
•
„Media coverage und risk perception“
•
„The Fukushima-Daiichi accident and its impacts on humans and the
environment“
Research reactors in Germany
BERII, Berlin
10 MW
June 2011, decision of the Federal Council of
Germany:
Facility specific safety re-assessment will be
extended to all nuclear facilities including research
reactors with a thermal power higher than 50 kW !
FRM II, Munich
20 MW
TRIGAMainz
100 kW
Public relations
Acceptance of NPP and even RR affected by public debate
Public relations are important:
•
Discussions on the utilization of research reactors, their research projects and
benefits for the society
•
Importance of education, training and research in nuclear safety
•
A differentiated consideration between power and research reactors
•
24th of Aug. /13th of Sep. 2012: invation of the organization against NPP
•
Installation of an internet web-page for the TRIGA Mainz
FRM II, Munich
Germany
20 MW
TRIGA Mainz
Germany
100 kW
Message of www.research-reactors.org :
“Neutrons of research reactors provide an excellent service to the society”
BR2, SCK.CEN, Mol
Belgium
120 MW
Released on
August 2011
Summary and conclusion
•
New media:
•
Media scene has dramatically changed, new media has become important
•
New opportunities: more space for detailed information, interactive
content,…
•
New problems: glut of information, wide spectrum of quality,…
•
… and old problems: language gap, often insufficient number of specialized
journalists, radioactivity is a controversial / emotional topic for many
people,…
•
Symposium of the FS
•
Public relations at the research reactor TRIGA Mainz
References
N. Morgan; G. Jones; A. Hodges: "Social Media". The Complete Guide to Social Media From The Social Media Guys.
S. M. Friedman: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima: An analysis of traditional and new media coverage of
nuclear accidents and radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 67(5) pages 55-65, 2011
Report of the Public’s Right to Information Task Force (1979) Staff Report to the President’s
Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz (BfS): Tschernobyl – 20 Jahre danach.
http://www.bfs.de/de/bfs/publikationen/broschueren/ionisierende_strahlung/tschernobyl/tschernobyl.html
T. Petersen: „Who is telling you, that journalists are not right?“, International Journal for Nuclear Power, 57(6) pages
380-386, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/4269765/New-York-plane-crash-Twitter-breaks-the-news-again.html ,
accessed January, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/world/asia/india-asks-pakistan-to-help-investigate-root-of-panic.html?_r=0,
accessed January, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media , accessed December 2013 – January 2014
http://www.research-reactors.org
Thank you for your attention !